In a major victory for student right, the Supreme Court has ruled that the strip search of a 13-year-old middle school student was unconstitutional. The Court ruled 8-1 with only Justice Clarence Thomas voting with the school in the case. For an earlier column on the case, click here. However, the justices also voted to protect individual school officials from such lawsuits.
The Court ruled in the case of Savana Redding, who in 2003 was a 13-year-old student strip searched by the teachers at Safford Middle School in Arizona in a mad search for her hidden drug stash. . . Ibuprofen.
In this case, the vice principal had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen pills on one of Reddings’ friends. That friend then accused Redding of providing her with the pills: typical flipping of an Ibu-head.
Redding was pulled from class by a male vice principal, Kerry Wilson, who led the interrogation and had a nurse and his assistant strip her and search her. No drug were found in her underwear or bra (despite the fact that underwear searches have proven successful with lawyers recently).
The Ninth Circuit ruled that “[c]ommon sense informs us that directing a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes, partially revealing her breasts and pelvic area, for allegedly possessing ibuprofen … was excessively intrusive.”
In his majority opinion, Souter held:
Savana’s subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. The reasonableness of her expectation (required by the Fourth Amendment standard) is indicated by the consistent experiences of other young people similarly searched, whose adolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure. See Brief for National Association of Social Workers et al. as Amici Curiae 6–14; Hyman & Perone, The Other Side of School Violence: Educator Policies and Practices that may Contribute to Student Misbehavior, 36 J. School Psychology 7, 13 (1998) (strip search can “result in serious emotional damage”). The common reaction of these adolescents simply registers the obviously different meaning of a search exposing the body from the experience of nakedness or near undress in other school circumstances.
Changing for gym is getting ready for play; exposing for a search is responding to an accusation reserved for suspected wrongdoers and fairly understood as so degrading that a number of communities have decided that strip searches in schools are never reasonable and have banned them no matter what the facts may be, see, e.g., New York City Dept. of Education, Reg. No. A–432, p. 2 (2005), online at http://docs.nycenet.edu/
docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-21/A-432.pdf (“Under no circumstances shall a strip-search of a student be
conducted”).
There was great concern about the case going to this Court which has repeatedly ruled to strip students of protections and rights. While the Court ruled that the search was unreasonable, it also ruled that individual school administrators could not be sued.
In what is likely his last opinion on the Court and a worthy swan song. Not only did Souter go out defending the liberty interests of students, but he showed his ability to unify the Court (with the exception of course of Thomas). Justice David Souter held that the search was “embarrassing, frightening and humiliating” and violated her subjective expectation of privacy. However, Souter also held that the division over the case shows that immunity is appropriate in this case. Only Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from saying that school’s vice principal, Kerry Wilson, could not be held financially liable.
Justice Clarence Thomas continued his consistent opposition to such individual rights, particularly when invoked by students. In a signature line, he wrote “[p]reservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution. And, common sense is not a judicial monopoly or a constitutional imperative.”
Souter’s decision is also likely to add to the regret of his departure for civil libertarians. This is particularly the case given Sonia Sotomayor’s prior rulings against student rights, here.
For the Souter opinon, click here 08-479.
For the Thomas dissent, click here
For the full story, click here.
Yes!
Thomas dissents, of course.
Not Even Trying for Learned, Rational or a Pretense of Respect For His Office Dept.:
What a dirty old Fascist.
The SCOTUS got most of this decision right, but as JT references the instigator of this travesty is held immune from
a lawsuit. I am sorry about that because although the School district can be held liable, Kerry Wilson was the real instigator of the incident. However, it might be shown in evidence that the School District’s policies were such that he felt he was doing his duty. In any event I’m happy with the precedent and hardly surprised by the Thomas dissent.
Justice Thomas presumably was unaware of the irony in his observation that “common sense is not a judicial monopoly.”
God is Thomas’ dissent ripe for satire. Apparently he likes the inner workings of dishwashers and other matters. Oh lone dissenter! You’re the bestest.
It is a no brainer case that revealed those who need to join Toto and his master and find a brain for one of them.
Those who felt the voyeur should not be held liable were like those in the Obama administration saying torture is wrong but lets move on.
The Sotomayer case involving military coup concepts and Fitzmas was similar in that they will go all the way across the ocean to the time of George to make governmental abusers of the citizenry immune.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/sotomayer-case-on-military-coups.html
The government is immune from protrusions of the eyes and other appurtenances into our privacy until we “deal with the George”.
Only Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented on holding the vice principal, Kerry Wilson, financially liable? I’m sorry, but the state is losing it’s moral authority by the second. While I applaud the overall aim of the ruling, by not punishing this overzealous school principal, or at least allowing the family to pursue civil recourse against her, the rule of law, again, seems to be ignored in favor of a “pass” for the State.
The family and their supporters may wish to acquaint themselves with the Church of Scientology’s “Fair Game” Policy in reference to Ms. Wilson. As L. Ron said: “the law can be used very easily to harass … The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage, rather than to win – if possible, of course, ruin [the target] utterly.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)
PS. Sorry for the Scientology cross reference. Prof. Turley’s Scientology posts have got me poking around in wikipedia.
The opinion left open the possibility of strip searches on better facts … noting the lack of danger of the particular item and the fact there is no real evidence she had it hidden on her person factored into their analysis. It also noted a search of her backpack and outer clothing was reasonable based on the say-so of another student and the fact she was at a party where alcohol was served (one at school, one at home).
I also find “Sonia Sotomayor’s prior rulings against student rights” unfair. It is ridiculous in fact to not cite her partial dissent that honored the privacy rights of students, disagreeing with the discretion the majority would supply to strip searches of students. You know, the issue at hand! Her dissent spoke in Ginsburg-like terms about the sensitive nature of children.
He links to his analysis of her opinions that appears to cite one ruling against student rights, one limited in scope [e.g., limited to her ability to run for school office] & based on precedent. In fact, he cites an arguably pro-student rights dissent ["Sotomayor wrote a dissent that such a decision was racial discrimination, a view that was obviously not shared by her colleagues."] She also joined an opinion akin to one recently decided by the SC giving disabled students rights to school funding.
More needs to be supplied before baldy implying Sotomayor will be less pro-student rights than Souter, especially when the opinion here is (honestly) a bit thinner than some give it credit for.
See also, here.
Another case upholding students rights that Sotomayor joined, which was decided before the Supremes decided the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case, upheld the right of a student to wear:
“The T-shirt, through an amalgam of images and text, criticizes the President as a chicken-hawk president and accuses him of being a former alcohol and cocaine abuser. To make its point, the shirt displays images of drugs and alcohol.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiles_v._Marineau
George,
That was a very interesting post. Thanks for the quote from L.Ron. I hope you post here again.
Well another right without a remedy. What a negotiation session that must have been in chambers. This opinion reads like a committee report and is just as helpful. Put it back on the shelf until we get a court that cares as much about individuals, as say, government institutions and bureaucrats.
“It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:44
Advil. They strip-searched an 8th grader for Advil. Ludicrous.
Here’s the meat of Souter’s opinion:
“The indignity of the search does not, of course, outlaw it, but it does implicate the rule of reasonableness as stated in T. L. O., that “the search as actually conducted [be] reasonably related in scope to the circumstances whichjustified the interference in the first place.” 469 U. S., at 341 (internal quotation marks omitted). The scope will bepermissible, that is, when it is “not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” Id., at 342.
Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion. Wilson knew beforehand that the pills were prescription-strength ibuprofen and over-the-counter naproxen, common pain relievers equivalent to two Advil,or one Aleve.4 He must have been aware of the nature and limited threat of the specific drugs he was searching for, and while just about anything can be taken in quantities that will do real harm, Wilson had no reason to suspect that large amounts of the drugs were being passed around, or that individual students were receiving great numbers of pills.
Nor could Wilson have suspected that Savana was hiding common painkillers in her underwear. Petitioners suggest, as a truth universally acknowledged, that “students . . . hid[e] contraband in or under their clothing,” Reply Brief for Petitioners 8, and cite a smattering of cases of students with contraband in their underwear, id., at 8–9. But when the categorically extreme intrusiveness of a search down to the body of an adolescent requires some justification in suspected facts, general background possibilities fall short; a reasonable search that extensive calls for suspicion that it will pay off. But non-dangerous school contraband does not raise the specter of stashes in intimate places, and there is no evidence in the record of any general practice among Safford Middle School stu-dents of hiding that sort of thing in underwear; neither Jordan nor Marissa suggested to Wilson that Savana was doing that, and the preceding search of Marissa that Wilson ordered yielded nothing. Wilson never even de-termined when Marissa had received the pills from Sa-vana; if it had been a few days before, that would weigh heavily against any reasonable conclusion that Savana presently had the pills on her person, much less in her underwear.
In sum, what was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to thestudents from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear. We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.”
Anyone think of Solomon and splitting the baby? Souter doesn’t think strip searching a 13 year old American grade school student whose only “crime” was possessing two Advils and an Aleve under some misguided all or nothing drug policy is outrageous or violative of the Amendment’s standard–unreasonable. Oh, really. Put this search at prestigious St. Alban’s Academy in Georgetown where the Justices’ grandchildren frolic and see if the Black Robes are so tolerant of the “judgment” of school officials. We give “high degrees of deference” (Souter’s words) to our public servants at our peril, and this gang of drug war fear-mongers just gave away the whole store. And to add insult to injury, the majority holds that school officials may be protected by that oldest of excuses, “I didn’t know the law.” So much for the presumption that everyone knows the law and that ignorance is no excuse. Some ignorance , it seems, is more equal than others. I am going to try that excuse in my next bank robbery case, too. Perhaps the most blockheaded comment is this one:
“The unconstitutionality of outrageous conduct obviously will be unconstitutional, this being the reason, as Judge Posner has said, that “[t]he easiest cases don’t even arise.” K. H.
v.Morgan, 914 F. 2d 846, 851 (CA7 1990). But even as to action less than an outrage, “officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law . . . in novel factual circumstances.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730, 741 (2002).”
That these Justices have so much trouble finding an outrage here tells me quite a bit about them, and next to nothing about outrage. I suspect they couldn’t find there own petards with a map, guide, and an anatomy book. Human dignity took a shot here and this gang that couldn’t shoot straight didn’t even see it fall.
Mespo72,
Thank you for your analysis.
In today’s young people’s urban lingo, *creep* might fit Justice Clarence Thomas quite well.
Thomas is saying that if it is not in the Constitution it does not count. Humm, maybe he better look at part of the same document which does not benefit him. Such as the right to own people as property and something about not being able to vote and all of the other Horse S*** that he seems to have benefited from, oh well. Too bad he is too stupid.
A wrong and no remedy, wow, who would have thought that this was ever possible? I guess the decision is based upon public dollars having to be paid. Oh my.
So Scalia will be in Dallas tomorrow. Yippie.
Justice Thomas said:
“[p]reservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution.”
What a fundamentally wrong decision to assert.
The preservation of order, discipline and safety in any public arena is absolutely the domain of the Constitution.
The Constitution defines the outer limits of the government’s capability to infringe upon the citizens’ personal rights and freedoms.
What makes this situation even most reprehensible, is that students are by law compelled to attend public schools, by virtue of that compulsion alone they should be afforded at minimum the same rights and expectations of personal privacy.
As a libertarian I am appalled that even the current standards of strip searching are considered Constitutional. Giving such superior weight to a “governmental interest” in contrast personal liberty interests is a slippery slope and a travesty. Giving the government a superior interest is the Socialist view of the relationship between individuals and society.
Basically saying the individual is inferior to the collective.
“Giving the government a superior interest is the Socialist view of the relationship between individuals and society.
Basically saying the individual is inferior to the collective.”
Well Gary, there no misunderstanding or misstatement in fact there.
Except all of it.
Giving the government a superior interest in this instance is not socialism. IT IS AUTHORITARIANISM. Authoritarianism is top down rule making imposed by force and is the political model of choice for fascists and dictators everywhere – including the unconstitutional criminals in the GOP. Socialism is an economic system where certain segments of the economy, but not necessarily all, are controlled as to best benefit all of society – like health care and energy – you know, those two segments of the economy fascist thieves have been screwing with modern society for years just to make their private profits to the detriment of all. Did I mention the innocent lives lost to pay for that blood money? Your misuse of the term socialism and your automatic assumption and resulting implication that socialism is somehow against individual rights when it’s NOT is wrong factually and indicative of your agenda (and protecting anyone’s rights isn’t it). That’s pure propaganda you’ve been swallowing there Gary and your regurgitating that nonsense helps no one. Unless you’re getting paid for it. Your misapplied terminology and grossly inaccurate implications reveal your either tacit or unwitting support of the Necon agenda to demonize progressives (by implied association with a wrongly demonized economics term) in anyway possible. Including calling an authoritarian action a socialist action in an attempt to smear progressives.
Now what would be your reason for doing that?
1) Complicity with the Neocon agenda
2) Ignorance of the Propaganda You’ve Been Fed and/or Ignorance In Fact
3) Deliberate Deception
That pretty much sums it up. So which is it? Mistaken or taken or complicit?
To The Regulars:
It appears we may have coordinated (and possibly multi-member team) troll attacks now. This is another example of increased sophistication in attempting to insert Neocon memes and tropes into discussions under the guise of reasonableness much like the disingenuous language Mike S. has cornered other trolls with recently. If so, that’s a good sign for us. It means we’ve moved up from freelancers to paid professionals. It means they are wasting resources battling us (to little but often hilarious effect). Be ready for the possibility of increased conflict.
“It appears we may have coordinated (and possibly multi-member team) troll attacks now.”
Buddha,
Thanks for stating thoughts that have been roiling in my mind, but feared to share so as not to seem any more paranoid than I already am. I agree it is a good sign for the Blog.
“This is another example of increased sophistication in attempting to insert Neocon memes and tropes into discussions under the guise of reasonableness”
This sums up my view of this better I think than my on words.
It is a well-known Rovian/Norqvist tactic that dare I say is insidious. Where I think their anger at being caught stems from is that they’re not used to being called on it. To them “bait the Libruls” is fun. The most pathetic thing about them though is that in their one dimensional world view they can’t even conceive of the fact that this site contains regulars who don’t fit into normal political memes. This is because there are a lot of smart people, who think for themselves and don’t follow party lines. When I think of you for instance, I don’t think Leftist, Rightist, I think humanistic pragmatist. However, even that is a label that can’t sum up the breadth of your intelligence.
Anyway, It’s Friday morning, I’m in a good mood and I am adding a mist of self congratulation to JT’s site.
One lives to be of service. Thank you for your kindness and generosity.
“Giving the government a superior interest is the Socialist view of the relationship between individuals and society. Basically saying the individual is inferior to the collective.”
Gary T,
Unlike Buddha I do see you as a Libertarian, rather than as a troll. In some respects like personal liberties, you me and Buddha share many beliefs. Where his critique is valid though is that you really must get beyond labels, if you are going to reject a political/economical philosophy and look into what it really means.
In late High School, because of the fact that I am a civil libertarian and believe in sexual liberation, I read everything Rand and Brandon had written. Examining them in my own mind I finally rejected their beliefs, which to me were socially and politically unworkable. I read Marx in college and found him to be obtuse and also ultimately unworkable. I Studied the writings and history of socialism. I read WF Buckley, WA Rusher and the National Review, also heard them on media and found that in my mind they were fronting for Corporatism and an American version of Aristocracy. I also read Burke, Adam Smith etc. I also personally knew was was recruited by every conceivable outre’
faction on the left and rejected them all.
In all this I came to understand what it was I personally believed in and why I didn’t believe in other forms of economic/political philosophy. In your quote above, as Buddha mentioned, you are mixing up Socialism as an economic philosophy, with Totalitarianism as a political philosophy.
This is a common mistake in the US because we look at the
history of the USSR and China and confuse their brand of totalitarian/communists with socialism. I’ve known dedicated true communists of the Communist Party and of the Maoist branch. They hated socialists/socialism, which they considered bourgeois and effete. One can learn much from hearing someone disparage their political enemies.
Personally, I have no investment as to what philosophy you believe in and as I said there are freedom aspects about Libertarianism that I respect and am in concert with. I’m only saying that you should have more familiarity with the philosophies you reject, if only to be more solid in your rejection. Lest you unfairly characterize me as just another
loony leftist, my whole socio/political/religious philosophy is summed up in the three quotes below:
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” Rabbi Hillel
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?” Rabbi Hillel
“I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.”
(Fritz Perls, 1969)
To all the regulars, sorry y’all for posting these yet again, but doing it makes me feel good.
Mike,
No need to apologize for going to the good Rabbi and Mr. Perls again. Good advice and sage wisdom only gets better upon repeated serving. It’s kinda like chili. It’s always better on the second day. It’s also kinda like water: required to keep learning alive and healthy as a self-correcting process of self-improvement and discovery. After all, what’s the good of accumulating wisdom but not dispensing it?
Mike,
Something that most Libertarians don’t know is that Rand despised the Libertarian movement of her day.
“Something that most Libertarians don’t know is that Rand despised the Libertarian movement of her day.”
Gyges,
Good point and quite true. Rand was in addition to being a lousy writer and less than perceptive thinker, a person that couldn’t get beyond her own youthful experiences with Communism(see her book Anthem). This was the formative spark for her attempt at philosophy, which was exceedingly muddled and actually quite sexist, for a supposed free love advocate. Dagny Taggart, the heroine of Atlas Shrugged, was portrayed as a conflicted woman, made whole by the men in her life, John Galt and Ragnar Daneskjold. Her female characters were always taught by and subservient to the strong male sharacters,
The Fountainhead for instance. Interestingly, in her private life she was somewhat a sexual predator. Seducing Nathaniel Brandon, her married “intellectual heir” even while his wife was also her disciple. Alan Greenspan also was supposedly seduced, which even in his youth couldn’t have been a pretty picture.
Mike,
An excerpt from another online discussion of Rand:
“…I’d be happy with a small handful of remotely relatable, realistic characters, or even just an iota of characterization that wasn’t wholly ridiculous, or perhaps a premise that makes Dr. Seuss look like Voltaire.”
Gyges,
That discussion you ran across was on target. Thinking back I read “The Fountainhead” at about age 16, after seeing the move with Gary Cooper, Paricia Neal and Raymond Massey on TV. A great movie because of great actors, but thinking back on it the plot was not believable. People strike a great newspaper, bringing its’ publisher to his knees because he fired the Architecture Critic? Anyway, from there I read the book and then her others. They appealed to me at the time because breaking away from the 50’s, meant breaking away from its’ stifling conformity and that is something that is a theme that runs through Rand’s musings. While I read her though, mediocre page turners that her books are (you could put Fabio on her covers), there was an uncomfortable inkling that her ideas were unworkable in a real world and that the plots were unbelievable, with characters made wooden through long, preachy speeches that would put actual listeners to sleep.
A better take on breaking free of 50’s conformity and its consequences was done by Vonnegut in a brevity of of words:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
Mike:
Didn’t catch this thread following my comment until now.
I stand by my statement:
“Giving the government a superior interest is the Socialist view of the relationship between individuals and society.
Basically saying the individual is inferior to the collective.”
What Buddha says about my comment, that this is not socialism, but authoritarianism, is half right.
Although in political and governmental theory, there may be a distinction, in practice socialism acts almost identically to authoritarianism.
Much as the Soviet & Maoist communists always gave lip service to the political theory that was ostensibly the basis for their governments, in both cases they acted like dictatorships.
Much as in religion, the priest or shaman acts a proxy for God, and speaks for him, and in his name, in Socialist systems the Government acts as a proxy for the ideals of Socialism and makes sweeping policy, legal and social/moral decisions in its name.
In both cases, political power is not flowing from the pure and noble origins, but rather concentrated in its stand-in, a changling who is not so pure and noble.
And much like God, who cannot speak for himself, socialism likewise cannot speak for itself. Again both cases, human leaders inevitably corrupt the administration of the theoretically correct.
Governmental power will alway become corrupted unless and until that power is truly distributed among the people.
Socialism seeks to do this by making all contribute equally and sharing equally, by edict from above.
Libertarianism seeks to do this by empowering the people individually directly, giving them the same rights and discretions over themselves as government traditionally monopolized for itself.
Whenever power is centralized, as in a socialist society, that power gets usurped, and it quickly becomes indistinguishable to authoritarianism.
In both cases, the Government speaks for the people, and reserves for itself the superior privilege to decide what shall be right for any individual in particular, in the People’s name, and in People’s governmental interest.
And that is why I equate the two, for all intents and practice.
Also, I am not a Rand fan. She was cute, had a few interesting perspectives, many of which overlapped libertarian theory, but I ain’t gaga over her.
So who cares if she liked liberarianism or not. I sure don’t.
“Although in political and governmental theory, there may be a distinction, in practice socialism acts almost identically to authoritarianism. Much as the Soviet & Maoist communists always gave lip service to the political theory that was ostensibly the basis for their governments, in both cases they acted like dictatorships.”
Gary T,
You are setting up a “straw man” and in the process ignoring my comment below:
“Me:This is a common mistake in the US because we look at the
history of the USSR and China and confuse their brand of totalitarian/communists with socialism. I’ve known dedicated true communists of the Communist Party and of the Maoist branch. They hated socialists/socialism, which they considered bourgeois and effete.”
Your statement about “socialism in practice operates almost identically to authoritarianism” is based on two systems that were not socialist, but communist. Philosophically, that makes a huge difference. Tell me about the “authoritarianism” in Sweden and Denmark for instance. Again, what about England, France, Canada, Germany, etc. that all have what you would call “socialized” medicine? Are they authoritarian in your view? You would probably answer me that their health care systems are authoritarian because any time government is involved in anything but basic services, that is authoritarian. To me this is a tautology. This is exactly where we differ and where I think that Libertarianism as thought of in the US is a lovely theoretical philosophy, but a terrible way to run a society.
Just as you feel socialism per se would always lead to totalitarianism, I believe that Libertarianism leads to the same thing. For a percentage of all humanity, lets say 10% for instance, the will to power and wealth is a lure that goes far beyond the sexual fantasies of testosterone crazed
young males. Indeed for people with that “will to power,” gaining it is far better than sex and once gotten sex follows anyway. In a Libertarian society these, sociopathic
types, will always win. This is because in the end, the result of all human power struggles comes down to whose got the weapons and the soldiers. We are still on the level of the Great Apes, where the ape at top the hierarchy runs the show and gets to mate with all the females.
That to me is the inevitable result of the libertarian philosophy: Survival and victory of the strongest. That the hierarchy is one person, or an oligarchy makes no difference to the rest of us who wind up getting ruled. Now I don’t know, this result may seem appropriate and just to you. For all I know you’re a seven footer, adept in martial arts, expert in weaponry and already wealthy. If that describes you, a society based on Libertarianism would suit you just fine.
You offer up the USSR and China as examples of socialism gone bad. Can you show me any examples of Libertarianism working out into a society that isn’t run by a few. I don’t think you can. In human history in areas where no government existed, the society that evolved was always run by a few.
Take the US Western Frontier for instance. See the Lincoln County Wars, for instance. Whether you have minimal government, or a lot of government, it always comes down to the sociopaths who covet power. My preference is I’d rather have a government to protect me from those thugs who like to
be in charge.
“In both cases, political power is not flowing from the pure and noble origins, but rather concentrated in its stand-in, a changling who is not so pure and noble.”
Read up on the man who runs Blackwater and tell me this guy wouldn’t try to take over a Libertarian based society. Also tell me how pure and noble his thoughts are. The other problem presented by a Libertarian Society is that you have to have basic laws, or it’s every person for themselves and the one with the most firepower gets their way. Who administers those basic laws and how are they kept from being corrupt? Then too, you have supposed Libertarians like
Ron Paul, who would impose their anti-abortion religious beliefs on a Libertarian society, which would instantly destroy its’ libertarianism.
Gary, it is a philosophy that is really appealing in theory, but can’t work in practice. Then too, most idealistic
political philosophies seem ideal in conception, but don’t work in practice. Marx, for instance was an idealist, but would have been appalled with where his followers took his beliefs. Adam Smith produced good economic theory, but now finds his beliefs cherry picked, by those using him as an authority. To paraphrase Shakespeare: “The fault dear Brutus lies not in the stars, it lies within us.”
Gary,
The point about Rand is that she’s was very influential in the formation of modern Libertarianism, yet most libertarians never got past reading one, maybe two, of her books (which to be fair is quiet enough of Rand’s fiction for a lifetime). It was mainly an aside since the real conversation seemed to have died down.
Plus, Mike and I have similar taste is literature, and enjoy the occasional bit of pointing out just how bad (especially from a aesthetic point of view) her writing is.
Mike,
Do you ever get the feeling you’re repeating yourself?
“Mike,
Do you ever get the feeling you’re repeating yourself?”
Gyges,
I have that feeling far too often. I sometimes imagine that I’m boring people by being repetitive, but sometimes it seems necessary, when I make a point and the response ignores the point I just made. At times I think I should save my comments in a place on my desktop, so I could cut and paste as necessary. That seems too much like organized work and I come here for fun, learning and interest in the group, so it won’t happen and people will have to put up with me…or not.
Mike,
A little known fact is that many composers used variations on a theme to show off.
Mike:
Mush as you point out my possible straw man in comparing Socialism to Communism, I believe you are mistaking Anarchism for Libertarianism.
Under a Libertarian system, the government’s law enforcement system is just as strong and vibrant as it is for system’s that you implicitly condone. Stronger even, insofar it would not be burdened and distracted by dozens of victimless vice ‘crimes’, and could devote it energies to real crimes.
So, people would not be free to plunder, terrorize and pillage eachother anymore than they can today in any western civilized country.
Your poised doomsday scenarios refer to systems of Anarchism, an agovernmental philosophy I do not ascribe to. In fact I agree with you that Anarchism would quickly devolve into Totalitarianism, survival of the fistest, and a much nastier arrangement than most.
Although different, Communism and Socialism are kissing cousins in their economic basis concerning an individual’s right to the money (or other work product) that they produce.
Socialism seeks to constrain that control to economic matters only, Communism continues on to everything else.
Much like we haven’t had a pure Libertarian system, neither have we had a pure Socialist society. Usually it is watered down with or melded with varying amounts of arbitrarily permitted capitalism.
But my analogy to the Soviet and Maoist regimes is still appropriate, namely that they did not even even live up to their namesake of Communism, while all the time touting its virtues and justifying everything they did under its aegis.
But Socialism would inevitably have the same problem; once you centralize the power to control all peoples’ money, you have the power to control everything else about their lives. If you are familiar with Libertarian tracts, you may aware of the adage that if you can control a person’s property, you control their personal freedoms as well.
Given that kind of centralized power, it too would devolve into oligarchy.
Winston Churchill in an electoral broadcast prior to the British general election of 1945:
. . . a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[55]
“Much as you point out my possible straw man in comparing Socialism to Communism, I believe you are mistaking Anarchism for Libertarianism.”
Gary,
I’m well aware of the difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism. I would never compare Anarchists to Libertarians because to me Anarchism is totally immersed in wishful thinking, i.e. we can all live together peacefully in an unstructured society based on barter, where as Libertarians are for the most part serious thinkers, with some sensibility’s that match my own.
“Under a Libertarian system, the government’s law enforcement system is just as strong and vibrant as it is for system’s that you implicitly condone.”
Here though is where we begin to diverge. While it is true that “victimless crimes” would be eliminated, though Ron Paul a purported Libertarian (I don’t know what you think of him)would have the victimless crime of abortion regulated.
We then come back to who has power within that society and whose personal ox is being gored. For instance, one would presume that in a Libertarian society people would have the right to form labor unions. However, a Libertarian Government
under pressure from industry might declare labor unions an illegal restraint of trade, as do many Republican’s. We both
know the history of labor strife in this country where the
Government actually stepped in to smash labor unions.
Now you, yourself might think that labor unions would be an
illegal restraint of trade, but if that is the case than you
would be redefining a construct where everyone is free to utilize the rights of their own property and also be able to negotiate their own terms of employment, however, they choose to bargain.
“But my analogy to the Soviet and Maoist regimes is still appropriate, namely that they did not even even live up to their namesake of Communism, while all the time touting its virtues and justifying everything they did under its aegis.”
Gary, this is of course very true. Where I think you miss my point is that why should we expect a Libertarian system to stay closer to its ideals, when in fact the determining factor in all political/economic system is that they are run by individuals and individuals who attain power are almost by definition ego driven, with a strong will to power. The USSR was ruled initially by Lenin, a ruthless bastard carried
away by his own fanaticism and then by Stalin, a highly paranoid psychopath, who shaped the USSR and set its’ destructive path. Mao, was also an egotist, who no doubt believed himself infallible. I’m not a fan of Karl Marx, but even he would have been shocked and disgusted by Mao’s attempt to implement his vision.
I would put to you that it is every bit as likely that any Libertarian leader, would be just as ego-driven, just as
pseudo-doctrinaire and just as filled with the will to power,
that sacrifices individuals on the altar of ideals. I believe this because in my years of living and hopefully growing I’ve come to the conclusion that the ills of society stem mainly from the hierarchical nature of how we humans organize ourselves. Those who are ego driven, or narcissistic, or sociopathic are generally the people who achieve power under any system. Some have enough self control and humanity to check their impulses and be able to empathize with others. Another minority of the potential leader pool have the traits, but do not suffer the hubris and so are humbled by the task, which moderates their behavior.
“If you are familiar with Libertarian tracts, you may aware of the adage that if you can control a person’s property, you control their personal freedoms as well.”
I’m well aware of that adage and that mindset. There is some truth to it. Again though the “devil is in the details.” The details I refer to are if you take that premise, not a bad one on its face and then apply it to a large corporation a problem occurs. The sole purpose of a Corporation, I think you will agree, is to maximize profit. The quickest road to profit maximization is to control one’s market. That can be done by elimination of competition. Many corporations can do this by attaining a certain size and then undercutting the prices of the competition to the point that the smaller entities simply can’t compete. They could also use the Microsoft Method, which was to huckster a ubiquitous OS and then move into other software and eliminate it simply because most PC’s were using their an MS/OS, that made other apps incompatible. There are no doubt many other paths, which no doubt include things like industrial espionage, etc.
My point is once a given corporation controls a given market and make no mistake under a Libertarian System they will, then since the State must not “control a person’s (businesses) property,” that particular market loses its’
freedoms and has the potential buyers at its’ mercy. To follow the thought further what if the market in question is oil, energy, natural gas, or even water. These monopolists
can have society literally by its’ throat. At that point we’ve passed beyond the libertarian Ideal, into an oligarchic
paradise.
Now, you being an intelligent man, might well counter this by stating that a true Libertarian Government would not allow such a thing to happen and I would counter by saying that at that point it would cease to be a true libertarian Government and become a system more like ours. Once you make laws controlling the market, or property, you are no longer adhering to the principle that the government should not decide how people handle their own property. You also might say that under a Libertarian System, corporations would be outlawed, as not having the same rights of person hood. I would answer that it would be immaterial because a business run as a partnership or consortium of individuals would act in the same way.
Finally, Libertarianism does envision a government entity, if only to run a legal system, police and a defense system.
How would people get elected to this system? How would that differ with today’s electoral system which is for the most part controlled by Corporate money and dictated to by lobbyists? I believe that it wouldn’t differ, except to make it worse, in the sense of more bought politicians, due to wealth being freer of restraints. That is why I asked for an example of where Libertarian Philosophy has worked, because in fact it never has.
If we could postulate a world where people are fully inculcated in Libertarian ideals and thus act accordingly the system might have a chance and in fact be preferable.
Such a world cannot exist for now, or into the far future, because we humans aren’t capable of the maturity a system like that would need.
Gary,
The term socialism has a different meaning depending on what part of the world you’re in. For instance: Karl Marx used the term to refer to a transitional stage between capitalism and communism, in England however, it is the equivalent term to communism, because communism was to close in sound to the Catholic term communion rite. To further confuse the issue many who propose selective nationalization call themselves socialist, even though they are more accurately described as social democrats. This is the common usage in America, not the more extreme wholesale removal or property rights.
So both you and Churchill were rallying against communism, not what most here would call socialism. The problem is when the water is muddied (intentionally or not) by those who use the extreme use of socialism to argue against what is in fact the social democratic use of the term.
Mike might say, “Socialized medicine is good, because countries with socialized medicine are measurably healthier.” (and then give facts that he believes back up this claim).
To which you (or someone else) would respond, “Socialism is bad, it always leads to tyranny like in the USSR.” That would be either be a fundamental misunderstanding based on multiple definitions of the same word, or a completely disingenuous argument.
Mike:
A really long post to reply to!
However, I too think Anarchism is pie-in-the-sky thinking, if only we would get along wouldn’t it be great?
Yeah, but ‘if’ is a big word.
Although here you say you are aware of the differences between Libertarianism and Anarchism, I believe in your previous post used Anarchism as the strawman to denigrate Libertarianism.
That’s why said that; here you make a better analysis.
Ron Paul’s opinions do not Libertarian make. Paul leans socially conservative, he has had unsubstantiated accusations of racism, and certainly holds the more extreme view of embrionic rights, via the ridiculous fiction that an embryo is a human being. That if true of course then leads to the state’s obligation to protect it, even under Libertarianism.
Otherwise Paul is a fairly good example of a Libertarian protagonist.
In a Libertarian society anybody has the righ of free association, including labor unions.
I don’t even know if there could be something called illegal restraint of trade under a Libertarian system, assuming no other laws were broken, but those would be the laws broken, not ‘restraint of trade’.
Any employee, unless bound by contract, is free to strike, and not run afoul anything libertarian.
I do not deem to defend Libertarianism on the basis of whether people in power can abuse their pubic charter. It has too many other laudable things going for it.
But to answer your question, the reason why a Libertarian system would be more resiiant to public corruption or usurpation of its adminsitrators, is because the governemental power is that much more distributed directly to the people. No one is obligated by law to perform anything for the government, and the government has no charter to provide any entitlements to the people (other than the minimalist justice administation and law enforcement, etc). Thus there is nothing for which its adminstrators to coerce with, or be coerced by.
Sure it could happen, but the propensity by inception is far smaller than any other political system.
Sure, a business’s purpose is gain profit, maximise, whatever.
This is of course always a boogeyman; a business/corporation will someday become so successful it will drown out its competition by swamping the market with its own products.
The first thought is, if it has products that people want to buy over competitors’ products then perhaps that is the way it should be.
If it has inferior products, but somehow prevents its competitors ware from reaching the marketplace, I would just have to wonder how they would do that without breaking the law (fraud, blackmail, extortion). The market will naturally tropicate toward better products. Competitors will reach their consumer base, if they have a better product.
In the past it has often been the government who has aided by law the monopoly of private firms. Remove those legal restrictions, and there will always be an available competitor to break a monopoly.
I don’t see how a Libertarian government could affirmatively break a monopoly, if that monopoly was not breaking any (Libertarian) laws.
A new theory of commercial freedom infringement might have to be grafted on, but I would be skeptical it could pass muster.
Gyges:
See my article “Socialism Beget Authoritarianism” at http://www.nolanchart.com/article6576.html
In the case of demarcated socialized services, one cannot say the whole subject system is a Socialist one, but that is the slippery slope, first you have this service provided for by the govt, then another etc., until you have Socialism.
In our proposed one’s, I believe there is still some room being left for competition, so there is some wiggle room to say it is not real socialism, where the govt has a monopoly on the subject service.
In the case of ala-carte socialism, the Authoritarianism occurs in sub-tyrranies, within the realm of those services. There the administrators have their dictatorships, until the populace revolts against it.
Gary,
I’m sorry about the length, but I tend to be wordy as a writer, which I’ve been more than validly criticized for.
“I believe in your previous post used Anarchism as the strawman to denigrate Libertarianism.”
You make a valid critique and I was unclear in my statement.
“Ron Paul’s opinions do not Libertarian make.”
We agree.
“I don’t even know if there could be something called illegal restraint of trade under a Libertarian system, assuming no other laws were broken, but those would be the laws broken, not ‘restraint of trade’.”
Wouldn’t you say that is a potential problem, depending on who is in power? My worries with any government do not revolve around the politic/economic set up per se, but how the leaders, once in power define them. Returning to Paul for a little bit, while he considers himself a Libertarian clearly in power he wouldn’t govern like one when it comes to individual social rights.
“the reason why a Libertarian system would be more resiiant to public corruption or usurpation of its adminsitrators, is because the governemental power is that much more distributed directly to the people. No one is obligated by law to perform anything for the government, and the government has no charter to provide any entitlements to the people (other than the minimalist justice administation and law enforcement, etc). Thus there is nothing for which its adminstrators to coerce with, or be coerced by.”
Haven’t we seen innumerable instances where justice and police powers are abused, despite the agreed upon legal and constitutional principles? In fact isn’t a lot of that, like
drug law enforcement, the very reason that has made the idea of Libertarianism more popular these days? In my view the modality for coercion is the law and police. The modality of coercing leaders is the age old method of money, power and dare I say sex.
“The first thought is, if it has products that people want to buy over competitors’ products then perhaps that is the way it should be. If it has inferior products, but somehow prevents its competitors ware from reaching the marketplace, I would just have to wonder how they would do that without breaking the law”
Today’s best example of why your faith is not necessarily well-placed is Microsoft.
They developed an initial OS. It was flawed, but through good marketing became ubiquitous in PC’s for both home and business. Due to their ubiquity they began to expand their software product. Excel, clearly inferior to Lotus, destroyed that product because of inbuilt factors that hampered its’ compatibility with later Windows versions. MS Word was also clearly inferior to Wordperfect, but the same result occurred.
Ditto with MS Access. Internet Explorer explorer prevailed over much superior browsers again due to the power of market share. Microsoft controls an overwhelming share of its market that is akin to a monopoly and the truth is its’ products are inferior, prices outrageous and their activities were nominally legal.
Imagine a huge company like Exxon-Mobil that begins to buy up power companies, LNG producers, nuclear power, and all other
energy entities. They could wind up controlling all energy
production/distribution and in essence then run the country, or turn off its’ lights. Even Adam Smith was wary of the “free market” and clearly wrote that there needed to be some governmental control to check such excesses.
“I don’t see how a Libertarian government could affirmatively break a monopoly, if that monopoly was not breaking any (Libertarian) laws. A new theory of commercial freedom infringement might have to be grafted on, but I would be skeptical it could pass muster.”
Here is our main source of disagreement. I believe that the natural tendency of business is to try to monopolize, or form cartels, based on the simple fact that they are by nature profit making entities. I foresee, with I think history’s backing that under a Libertarian System, we would eventually wind up with monopolies/cartels in all field of major endeavor. This would be particularly true with energy, food, health, water, media and shelter. If these fields are controlled via monopoly/cartel there is then no “free market” and indeed no freedom because they hold the keys to society’s existence. A Libertarian Government, despite being run by principled people would be powerless in the face of the coercion put forth. The society would then turn Oligarchic and ultimately Fascist, in set up.
Please don’t misunderstand me. Libertarians are not fascists and in fact as I’ve stated before there is much to be admired in the philosophy and in fact I wish it would be workable. Where we differ is in the fact that I think it inevitably can’t work in any way beneficial and you believe it can and would be preferable. We both think we’re right, but we’re also both people of good will. We can at least focus on those areas where we do agree which is civil liberties.
Mike S: “I believe that the natural tendency of business is to try to monopolize, or form cartels, based on the simple fact that they are by nature profit making entities. I foresee, with I think history’s backing that under a Libertarian System, we would eventually wind up with monopolies/cartels in all field of major endeavor. This would be particularly true with energy, food, health, water, media and shelter. If these fields are controlled via monopoly/cartel there is then no “free market” and indeed no freedom because they hold the keys to society’s existence. A Libertarian Government, despite being run by principled people would be powerless in the face of the coercion put forth. The society would then turn Oligarchic and ultimately Fascist, in set up.”
Excellent summation Mike. Not for nothing, you’re tragically forgetting the intent and purpose of the social contract as our founders understood it.
e.g. “MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature.”
J. Locke
SIYOM,
Bob
Mike:
On this monopoly/cartel issue, you raise some very good points here. And to be sure, looking at it top down, monopolies are almost always no good for society at large.
You assert that without some kind of meta-law, companies under a Libertarian system of government would inevitably grow larger, buy up all means for their competition to even reach their customers, proprietorize all the interfaces to using their products or services, possibly blackmail their customers against using other companies, etc., until they have achieved complete domination of subject goods and services and effectively locked out the possibility of competition.
Worse yet, you raise the more serious spectre of such companies gaining control over a commodity or service that the public simply cannot do without, and thus begin to control far more than their commercial offerings realm, into an area of national security.
And you point out that all this could be done legally under a Libertarian set of laws, since at no point did they threaten or do violence to another, and any infringements they did were all in the realm of voluntary merchantile competition.
To tell you the truth, I will have to dwell on these scenarios a little bit more in depth; your arguments have the ring of plausibility, though in the past most super-monopolies were made possible by governmental charter. You assert that this will happen even without govt’l regulation supporting it up, and without govt’l regulation keeping it down.
This is of course a claim that there is an axiomatic hole in the commercial system of free-enterprise, basically runaway success of a company (at the expense of all companies in the same field).
I would reluctantly agree that if such a total overarching success is possible in a free-market system, then that success would compromise the free market.
(But I wouldn’t say that Microsoft was that total, it was vast and ubiquitous, but there still was competition going on.)
It would seem there might be a number of libertarian laws that would be broken for such a monopoly to form. There are concerns related to the contract of adhesion, and the tragedy of the commons.
If I could not find a viable libertarian retort to this problem, I might concede to some kind of top-down law based upon libertarian principles. Libertarian law almost as a base principle does not like laws from above (edict or fiat laws), but has a faith that all meaningful complex laws are a resultant emergent phenomena from the the few base principles of libertarianism (e.g. you can do anything you wish as long as it does not harm another in the process).
In this way it seeks to keep society a self-organizing entity with as little centralized decision making as possible.
I think more about this, thanx for bringing it to my attention.
Gary,
Thank you for considering the issues I raised regarding Libertarian governance. To reiterate, I would actually love to see a world where we could have such a society. I style myself as an iconoclast and as we’d both agree I would fit best in a Libertarian framework, where presumably people would be non judgmental of others.
I do not think humans are evolved enough socially to be able to handle a Libertarian Society, without it being taken over by the sociopaths among us. While during my career as a Social Worker/Psychotherapist I actually worked with, and sometimes for sociopaths. They are most difficult people to deal with, particularly since they are generally completely charming and charismatic. Human society and human science are barely able to cope with them now and won’t be for a long time coming.
In fact we would probably agree that most of our political leaders are to a greater or lesser extent sociopathic. Set them loose in a Libertarian framework and they will tear it to shreds, while convincing many they will be implementing it.
That is of course, however, my surmise but the basis of it was set years ago in my teens, after reading Rand, being enthused by her ideas being myself an outre’ nonconformist in High School and then ultimately dismissing them not for their lack of attraction, or for ideas of human psychology, but for American History particularly Teddy Roosevelt’s battles.
(The link below leads to a great SF, very short story, by Kurt Vonnegut from 1961. This story framed my context for becoming enthusiastic about Rand and from a Libertarian perspective I think you will enjoy it.)
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
If I owned a lot of stock in a major corporation I would expect the CEO to be profit driven in outlook. I would want her/him to keep maximizing profits and gaining market share.
That is the value neutral purpose of any business. What we’ve seeing recent years is that attitude on testosterone. In the past part of the equation was to grow the business/profits, while ensuring its future viability and sustainability. Now the object is to just increase profits and hope someone bigger gobbles you up. The trend is definitely towards creating mega-entities and thus gobbling up the entire market.
In Microsoft’s case anti-trust laws finally took notice, since their business practices evolved into greater ruthlessness. Then to the EEU also stopped them to an extent.
The question then becomes how can a Libertarian Society be structured in a way to ensure that oligarchy and corporate blackmail won’t be the ultimate undoing of its principles? I don’t know of any ideas and/or theories that would ensure this and I suspect most Libertarians would bridle at the concept.
The reality is if people like us, coming from different viewpoints can find some basis of agreement, then maybe sometime in the future we really can find a way to humanely and fairly govern ourselves allowing each person to live up to their own potential.
Gary,
I understand your argument, Mike’s attempting to shed light on what I consider the blind spots in your thinking much better than I would. I did read your article, and it’s obviously well thought out and written. At one point I could have gone through line by line and agreed with every single one. Believe me when I say I know where you’re coming from, I had the same blind spots myself.
What I was saying in my last comment is that your reading of the Churchill quote was based on your own bias rather then on historical and social context. If we’re going to quote great men at each other, let’s make sure they were saying what we think they were saying.
I’ve been on a kick lately about using words accurately. You can ask my wife, I spent most of Thursday correcting her that I was Barbecuing not grilling.
Mike:
My fear about the sociopath taking over in a Libertarian Society is far less than yours.
I can see the possibility of runaway success, driven by whomever, sociopaths or just avaricious businessmen, causing it to crack, but that is only at the highest levels of success within the society, where influence by mass scale is the enabling component.
I don’t concede that it is a fundamental defect at all, and with a little thought (presuming it is even found to be a mathematical modeling instability at all), the problem can addressed within an expanded application of the base libertarian principles.
My concession is not that it actually is a problem with libertarianism, but rather I can see it could be, and requires some more thought on it on my part before I feel competant to take a stand.
I can’t say yet, but just as an example, it is also possible that the monopoly question, in a truly free market, it is a self limiting possibility, that the abused consumer base would eventually revolt, or that competitors would eventually make a concerted major thrust to break such a monopoly, creating products that are cheaper, better, are compatible with the monopolizer’s products, or the monopolizer gets so bloated and complacent it implodes from its own inefficiency (ala soviet union, even PRChina, possibly Iran). Or any number of other possible selflimiting outcomes that I have not had time to consider.
I am not saying this will happen, I am just saying these are natural also plausible possibilities of entropic self-limitation.
But at the more normal levels of domestic life, sociopaths would have a far tougher time manipulating the system and manipulating people in any legal sense.
Sure there can be con men, abusers and narcicists, but they can exist in any system of govt; the target question here is would they prosper anymore under libertarianism, and I would say not.
There is less to manipulate in a libertarian system, decision making and control is far more distributed and harder to glom.
Libertarianism in its simplicity is harsher in many ways, but also purer in its blatant realism to the society’s members. They know they can’t expect to get away with the same inefficient/lie-to-yourself crap, and plan accordingly.
It is in complexity that immoral people can “play the system”, there is simply less play in a libertarian system.
Gary,
We’ve reached the point where we will have to just agree to disagree. Many of the points you made I disagree with:
“My fear about the sociopath taking over in a Libertarian Society is far less than yours.”
“I don’t concede that it is a fundamental defect at all, and with a little thought (presuming it is even found to be a mathematical modeling instability at all), the problem can addressed within an expanded application of the base libertarian principles.”
“I can’t say yet, but just as an example, it is also possible that the monopoly question, in a truly free market, it is a self limiting possibility, that the abused consumer base would eventually revolt, or that competitors would eventually make a concerted major thrust to break such a monopoly”
“There is less to manipulate in a libertarian system, decision making and control is far more distributed and harder to glom.”
“It is in complexity that immoral people can “play the system”, there is simply less play in a libertarian system.”
Now we disagree on all of the above points and while I could muster arguments against it, it would devolve on my opinion vs. yours and in truth one of us could be wrong, or we could both be wrong and there is too little evidence for a Libertarian system even coming into play to provide for “for instances.” While I believe I’m right, I’m also fully aware that that belief is based on my opinion and view of the world. You probably feel the same and neither of us can provide actual facts to prove our propositions.
Yet this dialogue has been fun for me and I hope for you. We must always, in my opinion, constantly assess and reassess our
concepts about the world. You have given me much food for thought also and I can see that I need to review my premises and my arguments. Like you, not as a retreat per se, but as a renewal to see which have become stale and which need to be revised.
The happy part of this is what we both agree on. We both are strong for people’s liberties and against the encroachment of any entity on those liberties. We may see the politics and social constructs from different perspectives, but when it comes down to basics, we’re on the same side. I’m looking forward to further discussions on other issues.
Mike
Mike:
I totally concur.
At some junction often the best conclusion in discussion is an understanding that certain fundamental expectations about the topic are simply different. That doesn’t necessarily make one wrong on either side, just that the premise(s) will lead to different conclusions.
And yes, we both want the best for the individual in society is strong individual liberties that are protected from encroachment.
Til later . . .
Gary
A fantastic read….very literate and informative. Many thanks….what theme is this you are using and also, where is your RSS button ?